I don't think this is an argument for increased gun control in the States; it wouldn't be news if a situation like this were a daily occurrence.
Still, wow.
Bloody lunatic.
Symptom of the modern age - people massively overreacting because they are "irritated beyond endurance" by what is essentially an incident of mind numbing triviality.
The first thing I would like to ask the gunman is 'Why the hell did he need to take a gun into a cinema in the first place?'
This IMO is the reason why we should NEVER allow carrying guns to be legalised in the UK. End of!!!
I'm not sure what impact that would have had on the shooting other than in addition to murder you could also charge him with carrying an illegal weapon. But generally if the courts have a strong case against someone for something as serious as that they tend not to bother with charging for a lesser offence because there's not much point. If he gets life without parole or the death penalty then it really doesn't matter that he could be charged with other crimes because he'll spend the rest of his days locked up no matter what. The reason why people in America tend to carry is for self defence. Even if you are in an area which forbids the carrying of weapons there is no guarantee that someone with an illegal weapon will attack at some point if you look at all the shootings that have happened in states that don't allow you to carry weapons in public then it becomes clear.
We could speculate on ideas about whether legislating against guns would have prevented this man acquiring a gun somehow and then using it to kill another person but truly we can't definitely say that a ban would have prevented it so we have to see the facts as they are. Although I find myself agreeing with you about this country as I don't think any change to current british firearms law is really required.
I'm not sure what impact that would have had on the shooting other than in addition to murder you could also charge him with carrying an illegal weapon. But generally if the courts have a strong case against someone for something as serious as that they tend not to bother with charging for a lesser offence because there's not much point. If he gets life without parole or the death penalty then it really doesn't matter that he could be charged with other crimes because he'll spend the rest of his days locked up no matter what.
We could speculate on ideas about whether legislating against guns would have prevented this man acquiring a gun somehow and then using it to kill another person but truly we can't definitely say that a ban would have prevented it so we have to see the facts as they are. Although I find myself having to agree with you about this country as it's probably not the right move for us but that's because our culture is a bit different to the Americans and they aren't enshrined in our culture whereas they are deeply so in America.
I agree it might not. But at least there is the likelihood (while carrying guns is banned in the UK) that you are unlikely to be sat in a cinema with someone carrying a gun. Unlike the US of course.
Thing is though with stories like this you would hope it proves why guns should be banned or at least the laws tightened up however the pro gun lot say that this proves why you need to carry one then you can defend yourself against nuts like this
Thing is though with stories like this you would hope it proves why guns should be banned or at least the laws tightened up however the pro gun lot say that this proves why you need to carry one then you can defend yourself against nuts like this
I'm not pro gun at all at least not for this country however I can see why there is a need to carry one over in america where shootings like these happen. You HOPE that increased legislation would lead to shootings like this being prevented but there's no reason to believe that it wouldn't go the opposite way and shootings like these continuing and then what have you done by stripping potential victims of a fighting chance to live? Increasing restrictions on firearms in America is not the right thing to do especially in light of these shootings. People die every day people are murdered every day it doesn't mean that the cause of their death should be banned especially when there is nothing to say that banning it would have prevented it from happening. Michelle that's why I feel there are no changes needed for laws here because shootings don't really happen that much but as they are frequent in America and (in my opinion) increased weapons legislation there would do nothing to change the frequency of shootings then it doesn't make sense to stop other people from carrying. Appreciate though this is my opinion solely on America and not here.
Fantastic. Can we have one of these guys in ALL uk cinemas. Give him a medal now.
This is, quite frankly, an evil thing to say.
The 71 year old was not right in the head. When an audience member is being inconsiderate do you
a)go get management to sort it out
b) get your gun and kill the audience member because they're ruining your viewing pleasure of fictional entertainment?
The guy's life is more valuable than a 2 hour movie. That 71 year old could always come back and watch Lone Survivor but that man's life he took is gone forever. Let's get some perspective.
I agree it might not. But at least there is the likelihood (while carrying guns is banned in the UK) that you are unlikely to be sat in a cinema with someone carrying a gun. Unlike the US of course.
Ah, but what you really need to defend yourself from these nuts with guns is a "good guy with a gun". If only there had been a "good guy with a gun" in the cinema, this wouldn't have happened.
Its a real sad tragedy the guy died but why do people go to a cinema and spend hours face buried in their phone texting/using the net? Killing him was just way too out of line but again i don't get why people pay money to see a film but are using the film the whole way through.
Trouble with this idea of "gun free zones" is that, in the USA, it's only ever law-abiding citizens who abide by the rules.
We're lucky (or smart) in the UK in that we don't have this attitude where it's acceptable for a person to carry a gun under normal circumstances but, in the USA, they do have that attitude and, as a result, it just compels more and more people to do so and, of course, there's no way to tell the difference between a law-abiding citizen and a nutcase until they actually start shooting.
Its a real sad tragedy the guy died but why do people go to a cinema and spend hours face buried in their phone texting/using the net? Killing him was just way too out of line but again i don't get why people pay money to see a film but are using the film the whole way through.
This shot guy wasn't. He was texting during the trailers/adverts pre-main feature. I do know though that some text/talk during the main feature, which is annoying but not annoying enough to shoot a person.
This shot guy wasn't. He was texting during the trailers/adverts pre-main feature. I do know though that some text/talk during the main feature, which is annoying but not annoying enough to shoot a person.
Thing is, we've got no idea how the situation actually escalated.
I mean, it's not like the victim was tapping away at his phone and somebody just pulled out a gun and shot him to shut him up.
It seems as though an argument erupted and the old duffer obviously thought he was justified in "defending himself" using a gun.
Trouble is that, a bit like the whole thing with George Zimmerman, people seem to have this attitude that they can get into arguments and then, if it all goes wrong, they can pull out a gun as a "get out of jail free card".
a)go get management to sort it out
b) get your gun and kill the audience member because they're ruining your viewing pleasure of fictional entertainment?
He'll get off - he will just say he was standing his ground
And he'll be able to produce the Wittertainment Code of Conduct to prove killing a texter in a cinema is justifiable - though he will have to explain why he made a noise
Symptom of the modern age - people massively overreacting because they are "irritated beyond endurance" by what is essentially an incident of mind numbing triviality.
It's nothing new, the media are just better at reporting this stuff nowadays.
A hundred years ago, British people had no idea what went on in the US, the media didn't have the ability to tell us.
Comments
Bloody lunatic.
Symptom of the modern age - people massively overreacting because they are "irritated beyond endurance" by what is essentially an incident of mind numbing triviality.
The right choice I think.
Actually IN to the toilet? If so it sounds like a weird man.
This IMO is the reason why we should NEVER allow carrying guns to be legalised in the UK. End of!!!
I'm not sure what impact that would have had on the shooting other than in addition to murder you could also charge him with carrying an illegal weapon. But generally if the courts have a strong case against someone for something as serious as that they tend not to bother with charging for a lesser offence because there's not much point. If he gets life without parole or the death penalty then it really doesn't matter that he could be charged with other crimes because he'll spend the rest of his days locked up no matter what. The reason why people in America tend to carry is for self defence. Even if you are in an area which forbids the carrying of weapons there is no guarantee that someone with an illegal weapon will attack at some point if you look at all the shootings that have happened in states that don't allow you to carry weapons in public then it becomes clear.
We could speculate on ideas about whether legislating against guns would have prevented this man acquiring a gun somehow and then using it to kill another person but truly we can't definitely say that a ban would have prevented it so we have to see the facts as they are. Although I find myself agreeing with you about this country as I don't think any change to current british firearms law is really required.
I agree it might not. But at least there is the likelihood (while carrying guns is banned in the UK) that you are unlikely to be sat in a cinema with someone carrying a gun. Unlike the US of course.
Maybe that's why the manager didn't go as they were fed up of him running to them and moaning every time someone used their mobile
I wonder why the cinema didn't just ban him if he was obviously intimidating other customers and causing trouble
I'm not pro gun at all at least not for this country however I can see why there is a need to carry one over in america where shootings like these happen. You HOPE that increased legislation would lead to shootings like this being prevented but there's no reason to believe that it wouldn't go the opposite way and shootings like these continuing and then what have you done by stripping potential victims of a fighting chance to live? Increasing restrictions on firearms in America is not the right thing to do especially in light of these shootings. People die every day people are murdered every day it doesn't mean that the cause of their death should be banned especially when there is nothing to say that banning it would have prevented it from happening. Michelle that's why I feel there are no changes needed for laws here because shootings don't really happen that much but as they are frequent in America and (in my opinion) increased weapons legislation there would do nothing to change the frequency of shootings then it doesn't make sense to stop other people from carrying. Appreciate though this is my opinion solely on America and not here.
This is, quite frankly, an evil thing to say.
The 71 year old was not right in the head. When an audience member is being inconsiderate do you
a)go get management to sort it out
b) get your gun and kill the audience member because they're ruining your viewing pleasure of fictional entertainment?
The guy's life is more valuable than a 2 hour movie. That 71 year old could always come back and watch Lone Survivor but that man's life he took is gone forever. Let's get some perspective.
Just a "tad"
Of course had the victim been also carrying a gun he could have defended himself. Or they could have killed each other...
Or somebody else...
Ah, but what you really need to defend yourself from these nuts with guns is a "good guy with a gun". If only there had been a "good guy with a gun" in the cinema, this wouldn't have happened.
Cos THIS was a real thing?
Trouble with this idea of "gun free zones" is that, in the USA, it's only ever law-abiding citizens who abide by the rules.
We're lucky (or smart) in the UK in that we don't have this attitude where it's acceptable for a person to carry a gun under normal circumstances but, in the USA, they do have that attitude and, as a result, it just compels more and more people to do so and, of course, there's no way to tell the difference between a law-abiding citizen and a nutcase until they actually start shooting.
This shot guy wasn't. He was texting during the trailers/adverts pre-main feature. I do know though that some text/talk during the main feature, which is annoying but not annoying enough to shoot a person.
Thing is, we've got no idea how the situation actually escalated.
I mean, it's not like the victim was tapping away at his phone and somebody just pulled out a gun and shot him to shut him up.
It seems as though an argument erupted and the old duffer obviously thought he was justified in "defending himself" using a gun.
Trouble is that, a bit like the whole thing with George Zimmerman, people seem to have this attitude that they can get into arguments and then, if it all goes wrong, they can pull out a gun as a "get out of jail free card".
Thanks.
Bet no one dared text after that lol.
Texting is so last year - it's instant messaging and twitting
Wonder how long it took for the first 'OMG just saw someone shot' to be made
It's nothing new, the media are just better at reporting this stuff nowadays.
A hundred years ago, British people had no idea what went on in the US, the media didn't have the ability to tell us.